posted at 9:21 pm on July 10, 2014 by Mary Katharine Ham

WASHINGTON — Speaker John A. Boehner’s lawsuit against President Obama will focus on changes to the health care law that Mr. Boehner says should have been left to Congress, according to a statement issued Thursday by the speaker’s office…

Last month, Mr. Boehner announced his intention to seek legislation allowing the House to sue the president over his use of executive actions, a reflection of charges by congressional Republicans that the president has overreached his authority. On Thursday, Mr. Boehner said the lawsuit would specifically challenge the president’s decision to delay imposing penalties on employers who do not offer health insurance to employees in compliance with the Affordable Care Act.

“As I’ve said, this isn’t about Republicans versus Democrats; it’s about the Legislative Branch versus the Executive Branch, and above all protecting the Constitution. The Constitution states that the president must faithfully execute the laws, and spells out that only the Legislative Branch has the power to legislate. The current president believes he has the power to make his own laws – at times even boasting about it. He has said that if Congress won’t make the laws he wants, he’ll go ahead and make them himself, and in the case of the employer mandate in his health care law, that’s exactly what he did. If this president can get away with making his own laws, future presidents will have the ability to as well. The House has an obligation to stand up for the Legislative Branch, and the Constitution, and that is exactly what we will do.”

President Obama unilaterally waived a major part of the Affordable Care Act when he deemed the mandate that employers with more than 50 employees provide health care delayed for a year. The administration later pushed it back again for small businesses, despite the law’s wording requiring it to “apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.”

Legal experts expect the House to face several potential obstacles. While courts have traditionally held that frustrated members of Congress are not allowed to sue the White House, some lawyers believe that if a chamber of Congress authorizes such a lawsuit they may have standing. A successful House vote on the resolution authorizing the lawsuit “helps us to prove standing as an institution,” the senior GOP aide said.

Any lawsuit would be filed through the House General Counsel’s office at the direction of the chamber’s bipartisan legal advisory group. The latter is a five-member panel consisting of the top three leaders in the majority party and top two in the minority. House Republicans similarly used the bipartisan legal advisory group in 2011 to defend the Defense of Marriage Act after the Obama administration said it considered the law unconstitutional.

The Washington lawyer David Rivkin and Florida International University law professor Elizabeth Foley suggest a broader approach that doesn’t require legislators to act as individuals. They’re trying to persuade House leaders to mount an institutional challenge to the White House rewrite of ObamaCare’s employer mandate. Here the President is defying the plain language of laws and undermining legislative power. The courts ought to extend standing to the House as an institution to vindicate this injury. Short of impeachment, there is no other way for Congress to defend its constitutional prerogatives and the rule of law.

Earlier this year the Tenth Circuit used this theory to grant legislative standing to a group of liberal Colorado representatives to challenge that state’s taxpayer bill of rights. Last year the Supreme Court also granted standing to Congress’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend the Defense of Marriage Act…

If the executive branch is allowed to rewrite or suspend statutes, it is harder and in some cases impossible for voters to know which parties and spheres of the government to hold responsible. Political accountability is undermined.

The legal establishment will dismiss Messrs. Johnson and Rivkin as cranks with no hope of success, but it has been wrong before. The President thinks he can disregard the laws, but judges are paid to defend them.

“It is disappointing that Speaker Boehner and Congressional Republicans have decided to waste time and taxpayer dollars on a political stunt. At a time when Washington should be working to expand economic opportunities for the middle class, Republican leaders in Congress are playing Washington politics rather than working with the President on behalf of hardworking Americans,” the White House press secretary said in a statement.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

He already has, John, because you failed to perform your sworn Constitutional duty immediately following his first criminal act, allowing and — in fact — enabling/encouraging him to do so dozens of more times … while, undoubtedly, dozens of even more crimes will be committed before he leaves office.

“It is disappointing that Speaker Boehner and Congressional Republicans have decided to waste time and taxpayer dollars on a political stunt. At a time when Washington should be working to expand economic opportunities for the middle class

What economic opportunities for the middle class? Getting the government contract to make empathy bears so the illegal invaders are comforted in making it across the Rio Grande?

Big deal, the lawsuit will not even get thrown out of court until 5 years after Obama leaves office. More importantly, the Constitution does not list suing the President of the United States of America as a valid Constitutional Remedy for an out of control President, the Constitutional Remedy, is Impeachment.

Shiny object republican style. Nothing but red meat distraction coming into the height of the election cycle. Forget about that Thad Cochran stuff, look what we’ve done for the country…..we filed a lawsuit.

The suit is a joke. It goes no where in a hurry. Boehner is truly a reprehensible “leader”.

1h
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Steve Israel in response to Republican’s resolution to sue President Obama: ‘They’re spending millions more to sue the president over ACA. Is there any question why a Congress that continues to force middle class families to foot the bill for their political stunts is the least popular in history’ – via @NBCNews
========================

California, US
3h
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on House Republican lawsuit against President Obama: Republicans are wasting taxpayer dollars on another toxic partisan stunt – @ChadPergram
see original on twitter.com
===========================

1. 80% of participants voted AGAINST Obama’s $ 3.7 billion shakedown tactic to fix the problem. Special note: Two African-American participants made VERY clear they don’t want these “illegal immigrants” allowed into the country.

2. Nobody, but N O B O D Y spoke up defending Obama on anything. That’s NEVER happened before. A number of early questioners asked about the lawsuit along the lines of “that won’t accomplish anything”. When people raised impeachment questions – NO ONE followed up with any objections or any “it would be suicide for the Republicans” nonsense.

My TWO observations:

1. The immigration crisis is playing out STRONGLY against Obama and the amnesty supporters.

2. I am coming around to the viewpoint that a fair number of the Hot Air commenters “concern trolling” regarding impeachment are PAID GOPe shills … which would be perfectly in line with the Mississippi “Win by Any Means” tactics.

What a bunch of useless idiot cowards. The only appropriate action is impeachment. This lawsuit is a bunch of BS and a joke. But, what would anyone expect from the same group of colluding douchebags who have rubber stamped CR after CR and debt-limit raise after debt-limit raise for Barky and his anti-American crusade? The Vichy GOP just handed over everything to the America-hater and his minions. And now, after all these years and all the irreparable damage that has been done and all the impeachable and un-Constitutional and treasonous acts, they come along with this laughable lawsuit to beg some court to take more control than they should ever have to declare somethign that Barky will just laugh at – as he did with that contempt citation he has hanging over the Oval Office toilet. What can you say about this idiocy??

And the Vichy GOP are responsible, along with the Indonesian DOg-Eater for the invading tsunami of illegals – you know, the people that the Vichy GOP represent in Washington. Barky, his junta of idiots, the dems and the Vichy GOP should all stand criminal trial for that treason.

No. The House could stop funding at any time by not passing a CR or debt-limit raise. The Vichy House goes out of its way, though, to fast track all that continuing funding and they have the temerity to crow about how they don’t attach any strings to any of it.

Of course, this is why the last straw for me was in 2013 when the idiots in the House re-elected the Weeping Boner, even after he had helped keep the funding flowing for Barky’s dismantling of America. That was the point at which I just called it quits with the GOP for good, since voting for them didn’t carry any upside, at all.

1. 80% of participants voted AGAINST Obama’s $ 3.7 billion shakedown tactic to fix the problem. Special note: Two African-American participants made VERY clear they don’t want these “illegal immigrants” allowed into the country.

2. Nobody, but N O B O D Y spoke up defending Obama on anything. That’s NEVER happened before. A number of early questioners asked about the lawsuit along the lines of “that won’t accomplish anything”. When people raised impeachment questions – NO ONE followed up with any objections or any “it would be suicide for the Republicans” nonsense.

My TWO observations:

1. The immigration crisis is playing out STRONGLY against Obama and the amnesty supporters.

2. I am coming around to the viewpoint that a fair number of the Hot Air commenters “concern trolling” regarding impeachment are PAID GOPe shills … which would be perfectly in line with the Mississippi “Win by Any Means” tactics.

PolAgnostic on July 10, 2014 at 9:47 PM

You can easily block people from participating or talking/asking questions on a tele-conference. Are you sure that didn’t happen?

1. The immigration crisis is playing out STRONGLY against Obama and the amnesty supporters.

2. I am coming around to the viewpoint that a fair number of the Hot Air commenters “concern trolling” regarding impeachment are PAID GOPe shills … which would be perfectly in line with the Mississippi “Win by Any Means” tactics.

Could I ask which state you’re in or if your Congressman has a Red or Blue State perspective on this?

INC on July 10, 2014 at 9:53 PM

.
I live in Ohio. Our congressional district includes one of the major cities. The city is blue – purple-ish depending on how much the liberals have been stealing during any given administration.

Our Congressman is distinctly Red but even the Bluest of the Blues have given up as trying to paint him as anything but a squeaky clean straight shooter (during one campaign, his liberal opponent was using “word of mouth” to point out the CITY would get a LOT more Federal money if it was represented by someone more “flexible”)

I DON”T converse with trolls but in case anyone is wondering: As long as you are civil – everyone’s opinion is respected and his service to ALL of his constituents when they have problems is well documented and widely respected. If ANYONE tried “slanting” the tele-conference town hall it would blow up in their face because he also does so many face-to-face, open mike town halls ALL AROUND HIS DISTRICT and the local media leans decidedly to the left.

More importantly, the Constitution does not list suing the President of the United States of America as a valid Constitutional Remedy for an out of control President, the Constitutional Remedy, is Impeachment.

oscarwilde on July 10, 2014 at 9:34 PM

even if the court rules against them, the court might say that the only recourse they have is to impeach. then the ball’s back in their court again, and they may control both houses of congress by that point. furthermore, this president might get impeached, if there is public support for it. at the rate he’s going, that may come in time too. who knows? for now, i think the lawsuit is their best option.

And so I think the point of which you remind us is that Boehner and the republicrats are absolutely complicit with the existential crisis we now face on the border. And boehner’s answer is sue the tyrant….and not even about the southern invasion.

The lawsuit is not only not the best option, it’s a terribly destructive move that makes a mockery of the Constitution.

IN any event, the American Constitutional Republic has already been killed and buried (thanks to the inaction and even collusion by the Vichy GOP with the America-hating Indonesian and his junta of retards) so it doesn’t really matter. This is just one more act in the Kabuki theater of the American Socialist SUperstate and the retards, cowards and America-hating traitors who run it.

Thank you for taking the time to write that! The background helps me understand the thinking of those who aren’t in border states, and it certainly validates your conclusion that opposition is widespread.

But not passing a budget makes the crisis management CR leverage possible in the first place, right?

Yep. ANd it puts more power in the House since it only requires that they NOT pass something to change funding. Sadly, the Vichy GOP went out of their way to make sure that all of the CRs and debt-limit raises went through without a hitch, to insure that everything continued on as if the House didn’t even exist. They were even proud about that …

It’s a violation of the law not to pass a budget, no?

Yep.

You are right. CR’s are a cop out by the prog R’s.

But look how bad Cruz got slammed for opposing them.

I applauded him.

wolly4321 on July 10, 2014 at 10:18 PM

I was with Cruz, though I disagreed with him on the details. I didn’t want defunding. I wanted a full repeal of BarkyCare to be attached to one of the “must-pass” CRs or debt-limit raises. I supported Cruz just because, but I thought his intermediate method was poor, though it was better than nothing.

Of course, the Vichy GOP went after him with everything. No surprise. In WWII, the first actual battle we engaged was with the Vichy in North Africa :) The Vichy GOP have lived up to their namesakes … in all ways.

Big deal, the lawsuit will not even get thrown out of court until 5 years after Obama leaves office…

oscarwilde on July 10, 2014 at 9:34 PM

Wonder if having enforcement of Obamacare handed over to a court precludes the House from taking any further action on it– like repealing it. “Can’t do anything while it’s in litigation.” That would be convenient, wouldn’t it?

Thank you for taking the time to write that! The background helps me understand the thinking of those who aren’t in border states, and it certainly validates your conclusion that opposition is widespread.

INC on July 10, 2014 at 10:21 PM

.
I once upon a time ran the local portion of a Presidential campaign in this and an adjoining district before I had to withdraw due to injuries from an accident.

What should have been driven home in 2012 until people’s ears bled from hearing it:

Are you better off today than you were four years ago?

The African-American community KNOWS they are MUCH worse off under Obama and since HE “won’t be running again” the time for keeping quiet is over because the Democratic future is built on winning Latino voters and taking the African-American vote for granted.

The lawsuit by the Speaker could be more effective than some people are assuming, Justice Roberts seems to be emboldened of late. We may get a surprise down the line on this.

Certainly, it has a better chance of success than the impeachment idea, which has zero chance of conviction in the Senate. A slight chance is better than zero, just a little common sense there for the base.

Erick Erickson is actually more in favor of the House using the power of the purse to defund efforts rather than impeachment or the courts. Since most of the GOP House voted to give Obama a blank check to increase the debt next year, however, and are scared of their own shadows due to the “shutdown” last year, there’s little hope of them bucking up and doing this.

Basically what this resolution states is that Bonehead wants to confer impeachment powers onto the Courts. He doesn’t have standing to sue the White House, the courts will refuse to hear it, and Obama will claim victory and say “see, I have the power to write legislation on the fly”, and the GOP will continue to be the laughingstock that it is